Unconstitutionality of Section 497 IPC and Its Retrospective Effect

Introduction

This commentary examines the April 17, 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar Singh v. State & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 3652/2018), in which Justice Neena Bansal Krishna quashed the impugned summons under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). The proceeding arose from a criminal complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, alleging that the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Singh, had an adulterous relationship with the complainant's wife. Key issues included the validity of Section 497 IPC post–Joseph Shine (2018), the scope of discharge orders, and whether the Supreme Court’s declaration striking down Section 497 applies retrospectively to pending cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court held:

• Section 497 IPC, criminalizing adultery by penalizing only the third‑party male, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 4898).
• This declaration applies retrospectively to all pending proceedings—following the settled principle in Maj. Gen. A.S. Gauraya & Anr. v. S.N. Thakur (1986 AIR 1440).
• On the facts, the Magistrate’s discharge order (09.09.2016) was correct: no prima facie proof of sexual intercourse beyond mere presumption.
• The revisional summons (28.04.2018) under Section 497 IPC were quashed; the petitioner was discharged.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 4898): Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC for violating Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, calling it a “tripartite labyrinth” that treats a wife as a husband’s property.
• Maj. Gen. A.S. Gauraya & Anr. v. S.N. Thakur (1986 AIR 1440): Established that constitutional declarations apply to pending cases with retrospective effect.
• Satyam Sudarshan v. State of Telangana (Crl. Pet. No. 1513/2019, 03.08.2022): Telangana High Court quashed pending adultery prosecutions.
• Chetan Kumar v. State of Punjab (2019 SCC OnLine P&H 6290): Punjab & Haryana High Court applied Joseph Shine to pending adultery cases.
• August Kumar Mehta v. State of Jharkhand (Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 1081/2013): Jharkhand High Court struck down Section 497 proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s decision rests on two pillars:

1. Constitutional Invalidity: In Joseph Shine, the Supreme Court held that Section 497 IPC was arbitrary and discriminatory—punishing only third‑party men, excluding wives, and infringing equality (Art. 14), non‑discrimination (Art. 15) and personal liberty (Art. 21). The Delhi High Court reaffirmed this analysis and held the provision spent its purpose.
2. Retrospective Application: Following the principle in Gauraya, a Supreme Court declaration of unconstitutionality applies to all pending proceedings. Thus, the complaint filed in 2010 could not survive post‑Joseph Shine.

Impact on Future Cases

• All pending prosecutions under Section 497 IPC must be quashed.
• Magistrates and Revisional Courts cannot summon or try adultery complaints post–Joseph Shine.
• The judgment reinforces the constitutional principle that moral regulations infringing fundamental rights will not stand if arbitrary or gender‑biased.
• It strengthens the retrospective reach of constitutional remedies, ensuring past prosecutions under invalid laws are undone.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Section 497 IPC (“Adultery”): Criminalized consensual sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband—only the man was punishable.
• Discharge vs. Acquittal: A Magistrate’s discharge after pre‑summoning evidence is akin to an acquittal, barring further prosecution on the same facts.
• Retrospective Effect: When the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the invalidation applies to ongoing and unfiled cases dating back to when the law was operative.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Singh v. State & Anr. crystallizes two fundamental legal principles: the unconstitutionality of Section 497 IPC in light of Articles 14, 15 and 21, and the retrospective application of constitutional declarations. By quashing the complaint against the petitioner and setting aside the revisional summons, the Court reaffirms that personal autonomy in marital relationships cannot be criminalized under a provision that treats women as property. This decision cements the precedent that all ongoing adultery prosecutions under Section 497 must be terminated, marking a significant milestone in aligning criminal law with constitutional morality and gender equality.